If that seems like a stupid question, you haven't been paying attention. One of the most important contemporary issues is the effort by liberals to interpret our Constitution based on "international opinion," as reflected in court decisions and legislative enactments in other countries. Most Americans naively believe that the Constitution means what it says, and the job of judges in Constitutional litigation is to apply the language of that document to the facts before them. The left has long rejected this "simplistic" view, and has argued that general phrases in the Constitution must be interpreted so as to conform that document to "enlightened" opinion in this country. It is a small step to argue that the Constitution must conform to "enlightened" opinion as it exists in the "world community," a view that has gained increasing currency on the Supreme Court.

Today, the Associated Press reports on a televised debate between Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Stephen Breyer on this topic. Justice Scalia argued that it is "arrogant" for American judges to mold the Constitution to fit their concept of enlightened world-wide opinion. But Justice Breyer was breathtakingly candid about the role that he thinks foreign countries should play in dictating American law:

Breyer responded that international opinion can be relevant in determining fundamental freedoms in a more global society.

"U.S. law is not handed down from on high even at the U.S. Supreme Court," he said. "The law emerges from a conversation with judges, lawyers, professors and law students. ... It's what I call opening your eyes as to what's going on elsewhere."

I'm not sure I would have believed that if I hadn't read it: "The law emerges from a conversation with judges, lawyers, professors and law students." No mention of the language of the Constitution; no mention of statutes enacted by Congress or the state legislatures; no mention of American customs, traditions, or popular opinion. Do you think this an extreme view? It is, of course, but the Associated Press doesn't think so. Its article calls Scalia a "conservative" justice, but does not label Breyer. His view is, from the AP's perspective, the mainstream one. (A personal note--Justice Breyer was my honors thesis adviser in law school. I did not view him, then, as an extremist; on the contrary, he was one of a handful of professors who introduced me to free market economics. But no Supreme Court justice has ever moved to the right after being appointed; not in my lifetime, anyway.)

This discussion starkly illuminates the battle that will be fought over the Supreme Court during the next four years. The newspapers and television networks will tell you that President Bush's nominees, who will uphold the sovereignty of the United States and will decide cases based on our Constitution and statutes, and not some other countries', are "extreme." No one will suggest that those holding the opposite view--that American law should be decided by Europeans, Africans and Asians--are out of the meanstream.

The stakes could not possibly be higher.

UPDATE: Howard Bashman wrote to point out that he has a link to the Scalia/Breyer debate on his site. Watch it, and see for yourself.

Glenn Reynolds writes:

The "internationalization" of constitutional law is often seen as a liberal project, but it shouldn't be. Even if "international" is a synonym for "European," the consequences of importing, say, European law on abortion wouldn't be so liberal as the rules there are much stricter.

I yield to no one in my regard for Professor Reynolds, but he misses the boat here. Justice Scalia made the same point in the debate, as the AP notes: "If justices believe foreign judgments are decisive on these moral cases, they should ban abortion since most other countries do so, Scalia said."

But no one imagines that liberal justices searching for "enlightened" world opinion will find it in statutes banning abortion, mandating capital punishment, etc., no matter how widespread such statutes may be. The diabolical nature of the "internationalist" school of Constitutional interpretation lies, in part, in the fact that there is no standard by which Supreme Court justices choose that facet of world opinion that is "enlightened," except their own prejudices. You can be sure that only such "world opinions" as are liberal would find their way into the Constitutional jurisprudence of Democrat-appointed justices.

HERE'S MORE: Michael Hertzberg watched the debate; he writes:

I watched the Scalia/Breyer "conversation" this afternoon, and while I didn't specifically pick up on the AP's Breyer quote, I was troubled by Breyer's failure to rationally support the relevance of foreign decisions.  He seemed very defensive in the face of Scalia's onslaught, and seemed to repeatedly soften and back away from his position, appearing almost apologetic.  Although Scalia patiently and clearly explained why foreign decisions are completely irrelevant to interpreting our constitution (they have nothing to do with what the framers meant and what the populace who ratified it understood they were ratifying; and even the silliness about contemporary standards of our society refers to American societal norms) Breyer offered no coherent framework for making decisions on constitutionality, so his only justification was that it was generally educational to read what other smart people had to say.  He reminded me of a labor arbitrator I once appeared before, who, asked to interpret a collective bargaining agreement, pleaded, "Can't I just decide what's fair?"  Pathetic, really.  The only hope is that he will realize he had nothing to say, and will back away from the foreign decision mishigass.  But since I'm sure they have these discussions during conferences, it's a vain hope.

Since I agree with you that "the stakes could not be higher," I'm writing to some of the members of the Judiciary Committee, urging them to ask every judicial appellate candidate that appears before them to offer a view on this issue.

Pathetic, yes, but liberalism has never depended on winning arguments. If the vote is 5-4, the argument is "won." So it's a good idea to join Mr. Hertzberg in writing the Judiciary Committee.

Posted by John at 07:54 PM  |    |  

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/mt/mt-diespammers.cgi/9242

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Does Zimbabwean Law Overrule the Constitution?:

» INTERNATIONAL PRECEDENT AND AMERICAN LAW from Pejmanesque
John Hinderaker has a post discussing a debate between Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer, which touched on whether foreign precedent and international opinion should find their way into American case law. Justice Breyer argued in the affirmati... [Read More]

Tracked on January 13, 2005 08:10 PM

» Why we need to impeach judges... from Reagan Republican
You are empowered by the US Constitution to interpret the Constitution and our other laws and treaties. That is it. Breyer and his ideological cohorts are doing damage to America by subverting our founding documents and our ideological heritage to t... [Read More]

Tracked on January 13, 2005 08:12 PM

» INTERNATIONAL PRECEDENT AND AMERICAN LAW from Pejmanesque
John Hinderaker has a post discussing a debate between Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer, which touched on whether foreign precedent and international opinion should find their way into American case law. Justice Breyer argued in the affirmati... [Read More]

Tracked on January 13, 2005 08:19 PM

» INTERNATIONAL PRECEDENT AND AMERICAN LAW from Pejmanesque
John Hinderaker has a post discussing a debate between Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer, which touched on whether foreign precedent and international opinion should find their way into American case law. Justice Breyer argued in the affirmati... [Read More]

Tracked on January 13, 2005 08:47 PM

» Constitution Not The Highest Law In America? from Hoodathunk
Staggering. That there are judges out there who would even briefly flirt with the idea that they should hold their opinions - formed by their perceptions of a "world view" - as superior to the Constitution when passing judgement is merely proof that ... [Read More]

Tracked on January 13, 2005 08:57 PM

» BREYER ISN'T ALONE from JunkYardBlog
Powerline notes troubling comments regarding the authority of the US Constitution from Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer: Breyer responded that international opinion can be relevant in determining fundamental freedoms in a more global society. "U.S.... [Read More]

Tracked on January 13, 2005 09:13 PM

» AMERICAN HUBRIS from Begging To Differ
Is really ugly. Nothing whittles away at what little bits of patriotism I have as it does. The Power Line post (linked above) amazingly spins a pretty innocuous comment by Justice Breyer--that legal decisions are a result of conversations in... [Read More]

Tracked on January 13, 2005 09:27 PM

» Original intent from es-ist
we should keep in mind that even our "founding fathers" could not live by the words they wrote..."all men are created equal." [Read More]

Tracked on January 13, 2005 09:36 PM

» Powerline comments on the Beyer/Scalia debate on the influence of foreign law from Dummocrats.com
Powerline comments on the Beyer/Scalia debate on the influence of foreign law [Read More]

Tracked on January 13, 2005 09:51 PM

» Bush Court Nominees of Paramount Importance from OKIE on the LAM - In LA
In a Powerline article Hindrocket posts: If that seems like a stupid question, you haven't been paying attention. One of the most important contemporary issues is the effort by liberals to interpret our Constitution based on "international opinion... [Read More]

Tracked on January 14, 2005 01:00 AM

» Law: from Narcissistic views on News/Politics
I can add Stephen Breyer to the list of international law lovers along with Ginsburg and O'Connor on the Supreme Court. [Read More]

Tracked on January 14, 2005 01:33 AM

» Justices Debate International Law On TV from Vista On Current Events
"What you're looking for are the standards of decency of American society," Scalia said. "What does an opinion of a wise Zimbabwe judge have to do with what Americans believe? [Read More]

Tracked on January 14, 2005 03:46 AM

» Remember the Constitution? from Of The Mind
Umm note to Justicce Breyer, the only thing you need to look at when deciding the case before is the a small little document I call the United States Constitution. Remember it? Thankfully President Bush has the potential to nominae 3 Supreme Court Ju... [Read More]

Tracked on January 14, 2005 08:06 AM

» The "enlightened" will guide us... from Random Jottings
Big Trunk at Powerline has a don't-miss piece on the debate between Justices Scalia and Breyer on efforts to interpret our Constitution based on "international opinion," as reflected in court decisions and legislative enactments in other countries. Th... [Read More]

Tracked on January 14, 2005 10:19 AM

» Debate wrap from Vote for Judges
Powerline has a good review of the Scalia v. Breyer debate on the influence of international law on U.S. courts. This is the issue that got so deeply under my skin that I started this blog. [Read More]

Tracked on January 14, 2005 10:38 AM

» Scalia and Breyer Debate Use of Foreign Law Precedents from Outside The Beltway
The Court Is Open for Discussion (WaPo, A01) [A]t the American University Washington College of Law, where, for 90 remarkable minutes yesterday, Breyer and Scalia stepped out from behind the velvet curtain and argued legal issues in front of profes... [Read More]

Tracked on January 14, 2005 11:02 AM

» The "enlightened" will guide us... from Random Jottings
Big Trunk at Powerline has a don't-miss piece on the televised debate between Justices Scalia and Breyer on efforts to interpret our laws and Constitution based on "international opinion," as reflected in court decisions and legislative enactments in ... [Read More]

Tracked on January 14, 2005 11:12 AM

» In case you still don't think that the Judiciary from New England Republican
This not just "arrogant", "breathtakingly candid" and "extreme", it's a declaration of the rule of lawyers, not the rule of law; and it's a slap in the face for every immigrant there ever was. Why do you think we came? To get away from "what's going ... [Read More]

Tracked on January 14, 2005 03:59 PM

» INTERNATIONAL PRECEDENT AND AMERICAN LAW from Pejmanesque
John Hinderaker has a post discussing a debate between Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer, which touched on whether foreign precedent and international opinion should find their way into American case law. Justice Breyer argued in the affirmati... [Read More]

Tracked on January 14, 2005 06:32 PM

» INTERNATIONAL PRECEDENT AND AMERICAN LAW from Pejmanesque
John Hinderaker has a post discussing a debate between Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer, which touched on whether foreign precedent and international opinion should find their way into American case law. Justice Breyer argued in the affirmati... [Read More]

Tracked on January 14, 2005 08:06 PM

» Finally, a litmus test I can support from Low Earth Orbit
[source, source] “U.S. law is not handed down from on high even at the U.S. Supreme Court,” [US Supreme Court... [Read More]

Tracked on January 15, 2005 10:15 AM

» The Truth Comes Out. from The Sparse Matrix

Anti-Bush armband signals shame

Tracked on January 15, 2005 01:28 PM